Organisation Development & Industrial Relations:. A Case Study
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb054998 |
| Published date | 01 May 1982 |
| Date | 01 May 1982 |
| Pages | 3-5 |
| Author | John Edmonstone |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Organisation Development
& Industrial Relations:
A Case Study
by John Edmonstone
Organisation Development Adviser, Trent Regional Heath Authority
The application
of
behavioural science insights
to the
pro-
blems
of
work organisations
is
often given the generic title
of Organisation Development (abbreviated
to OD).
However, most accounts
of OD
interventions
in the UK
seem
to
describe events
in the
management levels
of
organisations (with
the
possible exception
of job
redesign
exercises)
and
details
of
OD interventions
in the
industrial
relations sphere
are, at
least
in
Britain, almost non-
existent. American accounts tend
to
treat management-
union relations purely
as
inter-group problems[1]
and to
ignore other aspects
of the
field.
In
this article
an
account
is given
of
work undertaken by
an
internal OD unit within
the
UK
National Health Service—in
the
area
of
joint con-
sultation within
a
health authority—and some thoughts
are
offered
on
the most fruitful relationship between OD prac-
tice
and the
field
of IR.
The Trent Regional Health Authority serves
a
popula-
tion
of
about
4.5
million people.
It
monitors
the
activities
of local level health authorities
in the
East Midlands
and
South Yorkshire
and
provides
a
range
of
specialised ser-
vices
to
such authorities.
One of
these services
is a
small
OD unit which
was
created
in
1973
to
provide advice
and
assistance
on
organisational
and
managerial problems.
The unit operated originally
as a
consultancy service
but
extended
its
range
of
activities into the action research
and
training fields
as its
experience grew.
Two
areas
of the
unit's work were precursors
of
the work described here.
In
the mid-1970s members
of the
unit
had
worked alongside
management consultants (hired
by the
Department
of
Health
and
Social Security) who were engaged
in
installing
a "participative management" package[2]
in a
number
of
hospitals
and
later
had
gone
on to
carry
out an
evaluation
of
one
such project. Additionally, from 1977
the
OD unit
had been engaged on research (and later consultancy) work
in
the
field
of
"social commissioning",
i.e. the
closure
of
many small hospital units
in
order
to
move staff
and pa-
tients into large district general hospitals (DGHs)
[3].
Stableton Area Health Authority covers
an
area
dominated by coal-mining
and
heavy engineering industry.
The Area Health Authority (AHA)
was
created
in
1974
to
manage local hospital
and
community services
and
replac-
ed
the
previous hospital management committee.
In the
late 1970s
the AHA
opened
its new
district general
hospital—an institution with
800
beds. Despite
the new
building
and
services, Stableton reflected
a
lack
of
trust
between management
and
workforce
and
demonstrated
a
tradition
of
problem-solving
by
conflict rather than con-
sensus. Little staff movement, suspicion
of
"outsiders"
and
a
strong desire
to
live
and
work
in the
local area
of-
fered parallels with the situation
of
many long-stay (mental
illness/mental handicap) hospitals where
the
dangers
of
"institutionalisation"
had
emerged
in a
series
of
public en-
quiries throughout
the
1970s. Over
a
five-year period
a
number
of
incentive bonus scheme working parties
had
provided
a
vehicle
for
staff consultation
in
many
of the
DGH support service departments, each developing
in a
fairly idiosyncratic way. Moreover, there
had
been
an in-
flux
of new and
younger middle managers into these
departments. Because
of a
perceived need
to
review
the
joint consultative machinery
and the
opportunities seem-
ingly available
to
modify management style,
the
area
ad-
ministrator
and his
personnel officer sought
the
assistance
of
the
OD unit early
in
1980. Following
a
series
of
discus-
sions
it was
agreed that
an OD
adviser would engage
in
data collection
and
diagnosis
in
order:
"To assess
the
present condition
of
employee com-
munication machinery established over
the
last 5 years.
To identify short-comings
and
possible remedies
and to
concentrate
on
the following departments
of
the District
General Hospital—Catering, Portering, Domestic
and
Central Sterile Supplies".
Data Collection
and
Diagnosis
Data collection
was
based upon
a
programme
of
open-
ended interviews with senior
and
middle managers, super-
visors, shop-stewards
and
shop-floor
staff.
Joint consulta-
tion group meetings were also attended. The data collected
produced useful indications
of
management attitudes
towards staff involvement; suggested significant
dif-
ferences between "fixed site"
and
"dispersed" depart-
ments; indicated that opportunities
for
increased involve-
ment existed between
as
well
as
within occupational
groups
and
highlighted
the
importance
of
manager
development
in
furthering
the
staff involvement process.
The managers
and
supervisors involved were presented
with
a
range
of
options
as
shown
in
Table
I.
Table
I.
Range
of
Involvement Options
Option
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Description
The manager decides without explaining.
The manager decides, gives orders
and
explains.
The manager consults, explains
the
problems and asks
for
opi-
nions
and
points
of
view.
The
decision remains
the
manager's
and
he
may
or may not
take account
of the
views expressed.
The manager
is
open
to
influence
and
persuasion—a form
of
consulting, with
the
decision remaining with
the
manager.
Joint decision-making.
All
staff
are
involved, whatever their
status,
in
analysing
a
problem
and
making
a
decision.
A work-group decision; problems being handled entirely
by
those carrying
out the
work.
Employee Relations
4,5 1982 | 3
To continue reading
Request your trial